thinking and acting in...
Post on 11-Feb-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
心理科学进展 2013,Vo1.21,No.4,679—700
Advances in Psychological Science D0I:10.3724/SRJ.1042.2013.00679
Thinking and Acting in Anticipation:
A Review of Research on Proactive Behavior
Chia Huei W U & Sharon K.PARKER
(UWA Business School(M252),University ofWestern Australia,35 Stirling Hwy,Crawley,6009,WA,Australia)
Abstract:Being proactive involves self-initiated,future—focused,and change、orientated behaviors.Such
proactivity has been recognized as a positive way of behaving that can lead to the increased performance and
effectiveness of individuals and organizations, especially when employees operate in contexts of
unpredictable and changing demands.Because of its well—documented benefits the antecedents and
mechanisms of proactive behavior have been widely examined in an effort to identify how to promote such
behavior in organizations.In this article,the authors first review various ways of conceptualizing proactivity,
which includes an individual differences perspective,a behavior perspective,and a process perspective.A
behavior perspective is mainly adopted in this article as this perspective is dominant in literature.Next.three
mechanisms representing “can do”.“reason to’’and “energized to’’processes that can trigger proactive
behavior are introduced.A review on antecedents of proactive behavior,including dispositional factors,
situational factors and their interactions,is followed.The authors also summarize consequences that proactive
behavior can bring,including job attitudes and performance.In addition to providing reviews,as the second
part,the authors introduce their recent research that considers expanded dispositional predictors of proactive
behavior(i.e.,need for cognition,attachment style)as well as how these predictors interact with the situation.
To conclude,the authors summarize what is well established in the literature,as well as what warrants further
inquiry.
Key words:proactive behavior;personality;organizational behavior
At the individual 1eve1.proactivity refers to the
phenomena in which an individual self-initiates actions
to master and change one’s situation or external
environment(e.g.,Crant,2000;Parker,Williams,&
Turner, 2O06). For exam ple, in the theme of
person—environment relationships,Bateman and Crant
(1993)indicated that human beings not only passively
respond to their environments,but tl1ey also actively
seek to master their environments. Research on
proactivity,therefore,concerns why an individual sets
out to master and change one’s situation or external
environment,how s/he can achieve this change,an d
what the consequences of proactivity are for
individuals an d organ izations.
This article aims to review proactivity
research and to introduce our approach to proactive
behavior by reviewing three studies we have
conducted. We foCUS our reviews on proactive
behavior at an individual leve1.rather than a team or
organizational leve1.Discussion on proactivity at
team and organizational level can be found in Bindl
and Parker(2OLO)and Wu and Parker(201 1).There
are two pans in this review article.The first part is a
general review of proactivity literature.Drawing on
other recent review articles(Bindl& Parker.2010;
Parker,Bindl,& Strauss,2010;Wu& Parker,2011),
we review how proactivity has been conceptualized,
underpinning mechanisms that drive proactivity,
antecedents,and outcomes of proactive behavior.
The second part is a more focused review on some of
our recent research concerning dispositional predictors
of proactive behavior.We conclude by summarizing
what we know from existing literature and suggesting
what can usefully be explored in future studies.
Review of Proactivity Literature Received date:2012—07—06
Correspondence author:
Chia Huei WU,E-mail:chiahuei.wu@gmail.com In this section,we review cOnceptualizatiOns
679
680 理 科 学 进 展 第 21卷
of proactivity,motivational mechanisms that drive
proactivity,more distal antecedents of proactivity,
and outcomes of proactive behavior.
Characteristics of Proactivity
Proactivity has been examined from several
different perspectives, including initially as an
individua1 difference perspective(Bateman&Crant,
1993),followed by a behavioral perspective(Frese,
Kring,Soose,& Zempel,1996;Parker,W illiams,&
Turner,2006),and,more recently,a goal process
perspective (Bindl, Parker,Totterdell,& Hagger-
Johnson.2012;Frese& Fay,2001;Grant& Ashford.
2008).
Regarding the individual difference perspective,
Bateman and Crant(1993)proposed the concept of
proactive personality to describe a person “who is
relatively unconstrained by situational forces and
who effects environmental change.’’These scholars
indicated that “proactive people scan for
opportunities, show initiative, take action, and
persevere until they reach closure by bringing about
change” (p.105).Supporting the validity of this
individual difference approach, proactive
personality has been shown to be different from
big—five personality variables(Bateman & Crant,
1993;Major,Turner,& Fletcher,2006)because it captures the dispositional tendency towards
proactivity.Proactive personality has been widely
examined as a predictor of different proactive
behaviors,including job search behaviors(Brown,
Cober,Kane,& Shalhoop,2006);proactive work
behaviors such as idea implementation,problem
solving,innovation,and problem prevention(Parker
et a1., 2006; Thompson,2005);and proactive
strategic behaviors,including strategic scanning,
issue selling credibility, and issue selling
willingness (Parker & Collins, 20 1 0). Two
meta-analyses (Fuller & Marler, 2009;Thomas,
Whitman, & Viswesvaran, 2010) support the
importance of proactive personality as a strong
dispositional predictor of various forms of proactive
behavior.
An alternative to focusing on the general
tendency to be proactive is to consider proactivity
as a way of behaving(e.g.,Crant,2000;Parker et a1.,
2006).From this perspective,proactive behavior is
defined as“self-initiated and future—oriented action
that aims to change and improve the situation or
oneselff’(Parker et a1.,2006,P.636).This definition
indicates three defining elements that are argued to
underpin multiple forms of proactive behavior
(voice,taking charge,proactive socialization,etc.):
self-initiation,future—focus,and change—orientation
(Frese & Fay,2001;Parker et a1.,2006).First,
proactive behavior is self-initiated,which means
that this behavior is enacted without being told to or
without requiring an explicit instruction.Second,
proactive behavior is future—focused,which means
that this behavior aims to deal with anticipated
problems or opportunities with a long—term focus.
Third, proactive behavior is change—oriented,
involving not just reacting to a situation but being prepared to change that situation or oneself in order
to bring about a different future.
From this behavioral perspective,the many
forms of proactive behavior that have been
investigated in distinct domains (e.g., careers,
socialization, work performance) should be
positively inter-related,even though they have often
been studied in distinct literatures.Supporting this
reasoning,Parker and Collins (2010) identified
three higher-order categories of proactive behavior
that all involve self-initiated,future—oriented,and
change—oriented behaviors,but vary in the goals that
are being pursued.The first category is proactive
person-environment fit behavior,which includes
proactive behaviors that aim to achieve a better fit
between the person and the environment,such as
feedback inquiry,feedback monitoring,job role
negotiation, and career initiative. The second
category is proactive work behavior,which includes
behaviors that aim to improve the internal
organizational environment,such as taking charge
to bring about change, voice, innovation, and
problem prevention. Finally,proactive strategic
behavior includes proactive behaviors that aim to
improve the fit of the organization with its wider
environment,such as strategic scanning and issue
selling.This integrative study shows that different
forms of proactive behavior can be seen to share
similar overarching goals,and therefore are likely to
have antecedents and outcomes in common.
第 4期 吴佳烽等 :深谋远虑 :前瞻行为研究的回顾与展望 681
In an extension of the idea that proactivity is a
way of behaving that can apply across multiple
domains, scholars have recently c0nceptualized
proactivity as a goal process (Bindl, Parker,
Totterdell,& Hagger—Johnson,2012;Frese& Fay,
2001;Grant& Ashford,2008).In other words,
when an individual tries to bring about a different
future via change, they engage in conscious
goal—directed processes, including both goal
generation and goal striving(e.g.,Chen& Kanfer,
2006).Goal generation involves,for example,
envisioning a different future and planning to bring
about a change,whereas goal striving involves
concrete steps to bring about the change,as well as
reflections on these actions and their consequences
(Parker et a1., 2010). From this perspective,
proactivity is not only observable behavior but
reflects a broader process that also involves
unobservable elements like envisioning,planning,
and reflecting.Recent studies have empirically
supported the process view of proactivity.W ithin
the context of career self-management,Raabe,Frese,
and Beehr(2007)showed that goal commitment and
information collection first contribute to career
planning, which then leads to active career
self-management behavior that helps tO eventually
achieve career success.Based on two longitudinal
studies using samples of graduates making the
transition from college to work, De Vos, De
Clippeleer,and Dewilde(2009)also illustrated that
career progress goals sustain career planning,which
then contributes to networking behaviors,and with
one step further,leads to higher career Success in
the end, supporting the chain of envisioning—
planning—performing process in proactivity.M ost
recently, Bindl, Parker, Hagger—Johnson and
Totterdell(2012)showed that envisioning,planning,
enacting,and reflecting are four distinct processes
involved in both proactive work behavior and
proactive career behavior.
In sumlnary,proactivity has been conceptualized
as an individual difference variable,a distinct way
of behaving,and as a goal process.Focusing on
proactivity as a way of behavior has an advantage
beyond an exclusive emphasis on proactivity as a
disposition because the behavioral perspective
recognizes that proactivity is shaped by
environmental factors. The process view of
proactivity,though proposed and tested in a few
studies,is still relatively undeveloped.
M otivational M echanisms of Proactive Behavior
Drawing on various existing motivational
theories,as well as evidence regarding motivational
determinants of proactive behaviors,Parker,Bindl and
Strauss(2010)proposed that proactive goal generation
and striving will depend on whether individuals feel
capable of being proactive (a ‘can do’pathway),
whether they have some sense that they wan t to bring
about a different future(a‘reason to’pathway),and
whether they have positive affect to foster their
proactive actions(an ‘energized to’pathway).These
three motivational mechanisms are consistent with the
motivational system theory(F0rd,1992)by mapping
on to the three forces in an individual’s motivation
system:personal agency befief,intrinsic motivation,
and emotionalforce.
Wimin the“can—do”pathway.the beliefs that an
individual has capability to perform a certain behavior
(i.e.,self-efficacy),beliefs that action is feasible(e.g.,
control appraisals),and perceived low costs of action
are key constructs(Parker et a1.,2010).Among the
three constructs,the role of self-efficacy in shaping
proactive behavior has been the most frequently
examined. Self-effi cacy refers to “people’s beliefs
about their capabilities to produce designated levels of
performan ce that exercise influence over events that
affect their lives”(Bandura,1994,p.71).Drawing on
expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964),Morrison and
Phelps(1999)suggested that behaving proactively can
berisky——it can damage one’s reputationifthe action
fails or incurs disapproval from others.Individuals
with high sel~effi cacy will be more likely to weigh
positively the costs of such risky action against the
benefits,to believe they can cope with any potential
setbacks,and will perceive a higher likelihood of
success.Therefore,sel~efficacy has been proposed as
a key cognitive—motivational process that drives
proactive action (Parker et a1.,2006).Empirically,
studies have shown that self-efficacy predicts personal
initiative(e.g.,Bledow& Frese,2009;Frese,Garst,&
Fay,2007;Ohly&Fritz,2007;Speier& Frese,1997),
job search behavior(Brown et a1.,2006;Kanfer,
W anberg,& Kantrowitz,2001;Saks & Ashforth,
682 理 科 学 进 展 第 21卷
1999), and other proactive behaviors, such as
innovation(e.g.,Axtell et a1.,2000),new comers’
proactive socialization behavior(Gruman.Saks.&
Zweig,2006),and taking charge(e.g.,Morrison&
Phelps,1999).
However,as stated by Eccles and Wigfield,
(2002)“even if people are certain they can do a task,
they may have no compelling reason to do it”
(P.1 12). Thus, it is important to consider
individuals’ reasons for behaving proactively.
Drawing on self-determination theory,Parker et a1.
(2010)argued for the importance of internalized or
autonomous, rather than controlled, forms of
motivation for prompting proactivity.In a broad
view,internalized or autonomous motivation can be
expressed in various forms, such as motives,
aspirations, desires, commitment, or feIt
responsibility,which in common convey an intrinsic
force to engage proactive behavior.For example,
proactive socialization tactics (e.g.,information
seeking,networking,job change negotiation)are
partly led by a desire for control(Ashford& Black,
1 996): personal initiative is associated with
aspiration for control(Fay& Frese,2001);feedback
seeking is led by the desire for useful information
(Tuckey, Brewer, & Williamson, 2002); and
initiative at work and voice are influenced by
pro—social motives(Grant& Mayer,2009).One’s
commitment towards career, teams, and
organizations also provide reasons to enact
proactive behavior.For example,Belschak and Den
Hartog(Belschak& Den Hartog.2010;Den Hartog
& Belschak,2007)reported that different foci of
commitment (career, supervisor, team, and
organization)were positively related to personal
initiative and proactive behavior at personal,
interpersonal, and Organizational leve1. An
individual’s belief that he or she is personally
obligated to bring about environmental change has
been repeatedly and positively linked with personal
initiative (Bledow & Frese.2009)and proactive
behaviors,such as taking charge(e.g.,Morrison&
Phelps,1999;Parker& Collins,2010),voice(Fuller,
M arler,& Hester,2006;Grant& M ayer,2009;
Parker& Collins,2010;Tangirala& Ramanujam,
2008),and continuous improvement(Fuller et a1.,
2006).Recently,drawing on the concept of possible
self(Markus& Nurius,1 986),Strauss,Griffin,and
Parker(20 1 2)proposed and found that future work
selves provide a strong intrinsic reason to lead an
individual to be proactive in building career.They
reported that individuals with more salient future
work selves,as well as more elaborate future work
selves,are more likely to engage in proactive career
behavior, including career planning, skill
development,networking,and consulting.
Proactive behavior is fostered through an
affective pathway.Drawing on Fredrickson’s(1998)
broaden—and—build theory of positive emotion,Parker
(2007)proposed that positive affect is likely to
influence the selection of proactive goals because it
expan ds thinking and result in more flexible cognitive
processes (Fredrickson,1998,2001;Isen, 1999),
which in turn help individuals tO think ahead an d rise
to the challenge in pursuing proactive goals.
Consistent with these ideas,positive affect has been
linked with the setting of more challenging goals(Ilies
& Judge,2005).Regarding build mechanism。Parker
(2007)argued that the impact of positive affect in
broaden mechanism over time is helpfu1 in building
more enduring individual characteristics.For example,
an individual can develop higher self-efficacy after
achieving a challenging goal and be more resilient
when encountering obstacles in goal achievement.
Several studies have supported the idea that positive
affect can influence proactive behavior.For example,
Ashforth,Sluss,and Saks(2007)reposed a positive
correlation between positive affectivity an d proactive
socialization behaviors.Madjar,Oldham,and Pratt
(2002)also reported that positive affect was associated
with more individual creaftve performance rated by
their supervisors.Within—person studies also suggest
the benefits of positive affect for proactive behavior.
Fritz and Sonnentag (2009)found positive affect
related to taking charge behaviors both on the same
andfollowingday.
Furthering our understanding of the relationship
between affect and proactivity,Bindl et a1.(2012)
differentiated affect into four quadrants of the affective
circumplex model(created via combinations of high vs
low activation and positive vs.negative valence)and
examined the impact of each affect category on
different stages in a proactive goal process.They
found that high—activated positive mood was positively
第 4期 吴佳焊等:深谋远虑:前瞻行为研究的回顾与展望 683
associated with all elements of the proactive process,
whereas low—activated positive mood was not an
important predictor,supporting the ‘energized to’
pathway proposed by Parker et a1.,(2010).In addition,
low—activated negative feelings,such as depression,
positively predicted employees’ envisioning of
proactive goals but no other elements of proactivity,
suggesting that depressed feelings might prompt day
dreaming or rumi nation about future change
possibilities,but not actual action.These findings
suggest that activation levels of affect should be taken
into account when investigating how affect influences
proactive behaviors.Moreover,their findings also
suggest that high·activated positive mood not only
contributes to proactive behavior but also other
cognitive elements in proactive process.
In summary, “Call dO,” “reason to,” and
“energized to” are three main motivational
mechanisms of proactive behavior that have been
supported in existing literature. Although each
mechanism has been well established,the unique
effects an d the interplays of these three mechan isms
have rarely been examined. Future studies are
encouraged to incorporate all these mechanisms to
provide a comprehensive examination.
Antecedents of Proactive Behavior
We now turn to review more distal antecedents
of proactivity,including both individual attributes
and work context factors.We also review findings
about how individual and situational factors will
jointly shape an individuals,proactive behavior.
Individual antecedents.
Given that proactive behavior is self-initiated,
not imposed or required by others,individual’s
attributes are likely to be important in shaping one’s
proactive behavior. We discuss in turn
knowledge/abilities and personality as two relevant
categories of individual attributes.
Knowledge~abilities
The importance of knowledge/abilities for
proactive behavior was outlined by Fay and Frese
(2001):“To be able to take initiative,one needs a
good and thorough understanding of what one’s
work is,that is,one needs job—relevant knowledge,
skills,and cognitive ability” (p.104). Previous
studies have found that a positive relation between
knowledge / abilities—relevant constructs and
proactive behavior,such as job qualification and
personal initiative(Fay& Frese,2001),cognitive
ability and personal initiative(Fay& Frese,2001),
educational background and job search behavior
(Kanfer et a1.,2001),and educational background
and voice (LePine & Van Dyne. 1998). In
highlighting the importance of deep—level
knowledge of the task, Ohly, Sonnentag, and
Pluntke (2006) found a positive effect of
routinization on creativity and innovation,
suggesting that“routinization enables employees to
develop new ideas while working and to implement
them”(p.271).
Personality
In addition to knowledge and abilities,
personality also has an impact on proactive behavior.
The most relevant construct is proactive personality
(Bateman& Crant,1993),and its predictive effect
on proactive behavior was referred to above.
Big—five personality traits have been linked to
proactive behavior.For example.conscientiousness
. . . — — tendencies and behaviors related to dependability,
conformity,and perseverance--——has been shown to
be positively related to personal initiative(Fay&
Frese,2001),proactive job search(Kanfer et a1.,
2001),overt performance and task information
seeking (Tidwel1& Sias,2005),career planning
behaviors(Carless& Bernath.2007).and voice
(LePine& Van Dyne,2001).In contrast,when other
more salient predictors of proactivity were included
in the model(such as learning goal orientation and
future orientation).Parker& Collins(2010)showed
that conscientiousness was unimportant in
predicting a range of proactive behaviors.
Extroversion, characterized by a need for
stimulation, assertiveness, and activities, is
positively related to voice(LePine & Van Dyne.
2001), overt and covert relational information
seeking,covert task and performance information
684 理 科 学 进 展 第 21卷
seeking(Tidwell& Sias,2005),feedback seeking
and relationship building among newcomers
(Wanberg & Kammeyer—Mueller. 2000). and
personal initiative (Fay & Frese.2001).Results
regarding the predicting effect of openness to
experiences, agreeableness, and neuroticism on
proactive behavior are less consistent fsee Wu &
Parker, 20 1 1).We discuss extensions to this
literature on dispositional predictors of proactivity
in the second part of our review.
Situational antecedents.
Situational factors are also crucial for
proactive behavior because they represent
conditions which allow or encourage(or constrain
or inhibit)all individual to enact proactive behavior.
In this section,we summarize findings concerning
j0b characteristics,leadership,and organizational
c1jmate.
Job characteristics.
Job characteristics play an important role in
shaping one’s motivation,behavior,and well—being
(Latham & Pinder,2005;Morgeson & Campion,
2003;Parker& Ohly.2008).and have been linked
to various forms of proactive behavior. Both
positive and negative job characteristics can trigger
proactive behavior.For example,job autonomy and
control is a positive job characteristic that concerns degrees to which employees can decide what to do
and choose how to perform their work has been
found to be positively related to proactive behaviors
(e.g.,Axtell et a1.,2000;Ohly et a1.,2006;Parker et
a1.,2006;Speier& Frese,1997;W u,Parker,& de
Jong,in press).This is because job autonomy can
promote one’s self-efficacy at work(Parker,1998)
and thus help the enactment of proactive behavior
(Parker et a1.,2006),promote intrinsic motivation
and engagement in bringing changes by motivating
an individua1 to redefine tasks(Salanova& Schaufeli
2008),and enhancing felt responsibility at work
(Hackman&Oldham,1976).Some job stressors,or
job characteristics denoting a deviation between a
desired and an actual situation.can also have
positive effects on proactive behavior because these
stressors motivate employees to take an active
approach in order to decrease the difference
between the desired and actual states fFay &
Sonnentag, 2002). Supporting this view, job
stressors, such as time pressure or situational
constraints, have been shown to be positively
related to various proactive behaviors(Binnewies,
Sonnentag,&Mojza,2009;Fay&Sonnentag,2002;
Fritz& Sonnentag,2009;Ohly& Fritz,2010;Ohly
et al一2006).
Leadershit,
Employee proactive behavior is also tied to
leaders’managerial style,attitudes,expectations,
and the leader—subordinate relationship.In general,
leaders who tend to express their supportive
considerations of subordinates, provide
opportunities for subordinates to engage in decision
— making,and have a positive attitude and openness
towards changes are more likely to promote
employee’s proactive behavior. Participative
leadership emphasizes the value of subordinates’
contributions and involvement in decision—making.
Contingent reward leadership emphasizes the
recognition and approval for subordinate effort or
performance. Transformational leadership
emphasizes motivating employees to challenge the
status quo.All three were found to have positive
relationships with employee’s proactive behavior
(e.g.,Belschak& Den Hartog,2010;Bettencourt,
2004;Den Hartog& Belschak,2012;Rank,Carsten,
Unger,& Spector,2007;Strauss,Griffin,& Rafferty,
2009).In addition,Scott and Bruce(1994)found
that when leaders expected their subordinates to be
an innovator or supporter of innovation,their
subordinates displayed more innovative behavior,
revealing a Pygmalion effect.Morrison and Phelps
(1999)found that top managements’openness to
change was positively related with employees’
willingness to engage in taking—charge behaviors.
Similarly,in a qualitative research,Dutton et a1.
(1997)found that top managements’willingness to
listen was positively related to employees’
perception,and that it was favorable to engage in
issue selling.
Not only leadership style but also the quality
第 4期 吴佳烽等 :深谋远虑 :前瞻行为研究的回顾与展望 685
of exchange relationship between leader and
employee can also affect proactive behavior.This is
because employees in a higher leader—member
exchange relationship are more likely to commit to
bring a positive change in the organizations and
have more resources from their supervisors to enact
change. Empirically, higher leader-member
exchange (LMX)has been positively related to
individual innovation(Janssen&Van Yperen.2004;
Scott& Bruce,1994),voice (Burris,Detert,&
Chiaburu, 2008), and change—oriented
organizational citizenship behaviors(Bettencourt,
2004).A more in—depth review on the relationship
between leadership and proactive behavior can be
found in Parker and Wu(in press).
Supportive organizational climate.
Past studies showed that an organizational
climate that denotes a supportive and
psychOl0gically safe environment is helpful to
fo ster proactive behaviors.For example,individuals
who report being satisfied with or supported by
others(Griffin,Neal,& Parker,2007;Kanfer et a1.,
2001;LePine& Van Dyne,1998)are more likely to
engage in proactive behaviors.Similarly,Axtell et
a1.(2000)also found climate constructs at team
level, such as participative safety, support for
innovation,management support,and perception of
capability in influencing team and the organization,
were generally positive to suggestion and
implementation of ideas.Scott and Bruce (1994)
reported that employees who perceived higher
levels of support for innovation in organizations are
more likely to exhibit innovative behaviors.In a
longitudinal study,Axtell,Holman,and Wall(2006)
further reported that change in management support
was positively related to change in suggestions,and
change in team support for innovation was
positively related to change in implementing
innovation. Focusing on the supportive
organizational practices,Dorenbosch,van Engen,
and Verhagen, (2005) further suggested that
commitment—based human resource management,
characterized by (1)employee participation,(2)
wages, (3) training and development, (4)
information sharing,and(5)supervisor support,can
form a strong employee psychological link (i.e.,
commitment) to organizations, which makes
employees more willing to take responsibility and
engage in proactive behavior.Finally,Parker et a1.
(2006) showed that employees’ trust in their
colleagues predicted proactive problem solving and
idea implementation via individuals’flexible role
orientation(reason to).Collectively,these findings
reveal that have a positive and safe environment is
important for an individual to be willing to
challenge status quo and effect change.
Interaction between individual and situational
antecedents.
Individual an d situanonal forces are not
independent;they can work together to influence an
individual’s proactive behavior.First,some studies
indicate that positive situational characteristics can be
conceptualized as conditions that allow individuals to
exhibit their dispositional tendency in being proactive.
For example,M cAllister, Kamdar,M orrison, an d
Turban (2007)found that higher procedural jusfice
enhanced the association between perceived role
breath and taking charge.Griffin,Parker,and M ason
(2010) found that leader vision enhanced the
association between role breadth self-efficacy and
proactive behavior when assessed one year later.Both
procedural justice and leader vision can thus be
considered as facilitating conditions that enhance the
likelihood that employees with certain attributes will
be proactive.
However,there are also studies suggesting that
some situational characteristics spur an individual to
enact proactive behavior if they lack dispositional
tendencies,implying a compensating positive role
of the environment.For example,Speier and Frese
(1997)found that job control has a stronger effect
on personal initiative among people with lower
self-efficacy than among those with higher
self-efficacy.LePine and Van Dyne(1 998)showed
that individuals with low self-esteem were more
receptive to favorable situational characteristics
promoting voice(e.g.,high levels of overall group
autonomy),than were individuals with high levels
of self-esteem.Similarly,Rank,Nelson,Allen,and
Xu (2009)found that transformational leadership
686 心 理 科 学 进 展 第 21卷
was more strongly and positively related with
individual innovation for individuals with lower
levels of organization—based self-esteem.In the
same vein,Bettencourt(2004)found that contingent
reward leadership had a negative relationship with
change—oriented organizational citizenship
behaviors among people high in performance goal
orientation because contingent reward leadership
focuses on in—role task responsmilities.People high
in performance goal orientation tend to focus on
in—role tasks to achieve their competence at work,
rather than extra—role, change—oriented
organizational citizenship behaviors. However,
when people high in performance goal orientation
encounter transformational leaders,they are likely
to engage in change—oriented organizational
citizenship behaviors because in this case,
transformational leaders focus on broader
organizational values and goals.People high in
performance goal orientation are more likely to be
attuned to this cue and enacting proactive behavior
in order to achieve their competence at work.All
these findings suggested that situational
characteristics can spur individuals with less
conducive attributes to behave more proactively.
Recently,Den Hartog and Belschak (20 1 2)
indicated a three—way interaction effect among
transformational leadership, role breadth
self-efficacy and job autonomy in predicting
proactive behavior.Specifically,their study showed
that transformational leadership is more effective in
driving proactive behavior for employees with
higher role breadth self-efficacy when job autonomy
is high,but it is more effective to lead to proactive
behavior for employees with lower role breadth
self-efficacy when job autonomy is low.This
finding suggests that whether transformational
leadership functions to facilitate individuals to
exhibit a tendency towards being proactive(high
self-efficacy),or functions to direct an individual
with less tendency towards being proactive(1ow
sel~efficacy),depends on job characteristics.Their
investigation thus provides a more fine—grained
interaction model to understand the ioint impact of
individual and situational factors in shaping
proactive behavior.
Some situations can also decrease an
individual’s tendency to be proactive.For example,
Gupta and Bhawe(2007)found that the negative
impact of stereotype threat on entrepreneurship
intention was stronger among women with higher
proactive personality because entrepreneurship is
related to a masculine stereotype and women,who
are negatively stereotyped in entrepreneurship,tend
to show a decrement in aspirations to be
entrepreneurs when they are aware of the stereotype,
and believe that they are judged based on the stereotype.Thus,their findings suggest that an
individual’s tendency to be proactive can also be
constrained in certain situations.
Finally,it is also possible that dispositional
factors can compensate for situational factors in
proactive behavior.Grant and Sumanth (2009)
found that those individuals who were high in
dispositional trust propensity and were also
pro—socially motivated showed high levels of
job—related initiative,even if they indicated their
managers were not trustworthy. VandeWalle,
Ganesan,Challagalla,and Brown(2000)indicated
that individuals’learning goal orientation becomes
more important for perceiving higher value and
lower cost in feedback seeking when individuals
work with inconsiderate supervisors.These findings
in general imply that dispositional factors(trust
propensity or learning goal orientation) can
compensate for situational factors (manager
trustworthiness or inconsiderate supervisors)to lead
proactive behavior.
In summary,the interaction effects between
individual and situational antecedents are complex.
and further investigation is needed to develop
integrative frameworks that synthesize the findings.
C0nsequences of proactive behavior
We now focus on the outcomes of proactive
behavior,including job performance,career success,
and subjective satisfaction.
Job performance.
Proactive behavior has been linked to superior
performance,particularly because in uncertain and
interdependent contexts,being proactive is helpful
第 4期 吴佳焊等 :深谋远虑 :前瞻行为研究的回顾与展望 687
for generating creative ideas(Binnewies,Ohly,&
Sonnentag, 2007) that facilitate dealing with
changing environments(Griffin et a1.,2007).For
example,specific proactive behaviors have been
found to be positively related to individuals’
performance rated by supervisors or themselves,
including voice,issue selling and taking charge
(Grant,Parker,& Collins,2009;Van Dyne& Le
Pine,1998),network building and taking charge
(Thompson,2005),personal initiative(Bledow &
Frese, 2009), proactive information seeking
(Morrison,1993a,1993b),building relationships
with boss and positive framing(Ashford& Black,
1996;Ashforth et a1.,2007),and championing
behavior in innovation(Howell& Shea.2001).
Career success.
Proactive behaviors can also lead to higher
career success,such as when individuals build
networks that can help their performance,actively
secure mentoring relationships,or negotiate roles
that better fit with individual abilities.As reported
by Frese et a1.(1 997),people who are high in
personal initiative have a clear career plan,a higher
level of execution of the plan, and higher
employability. Proactive behavior for shaping
interpersonal relationships with supervisor or senior
colleagues can also contribute to an individual’s
career development. For example, Ashford and
Black(1996)found that newcomers who proactively
build relationships with supervisors in the first six
month have higher self-rated performance at the end
of a yean Building relationships with senior
colleagues or mentors can facilitate achieving
favorable career outcomes such as higher income
and higher-level positions in the hierarchy(Blickle,
Witzki,& Schneider,2009).Similarly,Eby,Butts
and Lockwood(2003)reported that experience with
a mentor,breadth of within—organization networks,
and breadth of external networks were positively
related to perceived career success and internal and
external marketability.
Subjective satisfaction.
Proactive behavior is also related to higher
satisfaction with their iobs,careers,or lives because
its achievement to bring about change will lead an
individual to be more satisfied with their conditions.
For example, career initiative and individual
innovation can predict increases in career
satisfaction and promotions at work in two years
(Seibert,Kraimer,& Crant,2001).Information
seeking,feedback seeking,relationship building,
and positive framing were also generally linked to
higher levels of job satisfaction and lower levels of
intention to leave (M orrison,1993b;W anberg &
Kammeyer—Mueller,2000).Ashforth et a1.(2007)
further reported that proactive behavior
(information seeking,feedback seeking,job—change
negotiation,socializing,building a relationship with
boss,and networking)contributes to higher role
innovation,lower intentions tO quit,and higher
newcomer learning,which in turn,lead to higher job
performance,organization identification,and job
satjsfactjon.
Summary of Literature Review
Actively trying to take charge of one’s self or
the environment to bring about a different future·-——
or being proactive--——is an increasingly vital way of
behaving in today’s work places.We have shown
how the concept of proactivity can be considered
from dispositional,behavioral, and goal process
perspectives. Focusing particularly on the
behavioral perspective, we reviewed three
motivational mechanisms to promote proactive
behavior:the belief that one is able to be proactive
(can do),that one wants to be proactive(reason to),
and the experience of activated positive affect
(energized to).Individual and situational antecedents
of proactive behavior were also reviewed with the
findings showing that both individual and situational
factors operate separately and jointly to shape
proactive behavior. Finally, the current evidence
suggests that proactive behavior can lead to positive
outcomes,such as higher career success an d better
job performance,albeit with some evidence that these
positive outcomes depend on individual attributes
such as situational judgment (Chan,2006) or
pro—social motivation(Grant et a1.,2009).
688 心 理 科 学 进 展 第 21卷
Recent Studies on Dispositional Influences
on Proactive Behavior
In this section,we provide a specific review
on our recent work that focuses mainly on the role
of dispositional factors in shaping proactive
behavior. Overall, there are four main
characteristics of our approach.First,we highlight
cognitive and relational aspects of proactivity that
have less often been examined,even though they are
important to describe the nature of proactivity.
Second, we adopt an individual differences
perspective to consider these cognitive and
relational aspects of proactivity.Past studies have
paid more attention to situational rather than
disposition impacts on proactive behavior. Yet
proactivity is self-initiated,so it is reasonable to
consider why some peop!e but not others will initiate behavior to bring about change.Third,we
investigate interactions between dispositional and
situational factors in shaping proactive behavior,In
so doing, we identify boundary conditions of
dispositions and situations,and thereby provide
useful managerial implications to promote proactive
behavior. Theoretically, delineating interaction
effects between dispositional and situational factors
helps us to understand the potential mechanisms in
leading proactive behavior. Fourth,we address
dispositional influences on proactive behavior at
both inter— and intra·-individual level as they
represent different psychological mechanisms
(Borsboom,Mellenbergh,& van Heerden,2003).
Considering both levels is valuable because it
addresses both the structure and process views of
personality (Fleeson,2001)and provides a more
comprehensive understanding for dispositional
factors to operate.
Cognitive Nature of Proactivity:The Role of
Need for Cognition and Contingent Effects of
Job Characteristics
As discussed above,scholars have suggested
that proactivity is a goal—oriented process that
involves cognitive and behavioral elements
including goal envisioning,planning,enacting,and
reflecting (Bindl et a1.,2012;Frese & Fay,2001;
Grant& Ashford.2008).From this perspective,
being proactive involves not only doing,but also
thinking,such as imagining how things might be
different and generating new ideas or alternative
ways to do jobs(Frese&Fay,2001).As such,it is
important to consider thinking—oriented dispositions
over and above action—oriented ones like proactive
personality.
We(Wu et a1.,in press)suggest that the need
for cognition,a dispositional tendency to engage in
and enjoy thinking(Cacioppo& Petty,1982),can positively contribute to proactive behavior.
Individuals who are high in the need for cognition
“tend to have active,exploring minds,and,through
their senses and intellect,they reach and draw out
information from their environment;accordingly,
they are more likely to expend effort on information
acquisition,reasoning,and problem solving to cope
with a wide variety of predicaments in their world”
(Cacioppo,Petty,Feinstein,& Jarvis,1996,p.245).
People high in the need for cognition are thus
expected to be comfortable initiating change that
deviates from the status quo.They are also likely to
process more information in any given situation,
and therefore are better able to predict the future
and come up with plans to deal with the anticipated
situation.
Research has identified several ways in which
the need for cognition can facilitate the thinking
involved in proactivity.First,people high in the
need for cognition are more likely to engage in and
enjoy situations marked by novelty,complexity,and
uncertainty (Cacioppo et a1., 1996), which is
typically when proactivity is called for,as indicated
by Griffin et a1.(2007,p.329):“proactivity is
important whenever a work context involves
uncertainty and some aspects of work roles that
cannot be formalized.”Second,people high in the
need for cognition have a higher ability to link new
knowledge into previous knowledge in the pursuit
of comprehension,and can flexibly change learning
strategies to acquire new information(Evans,Kirby,
& Fabrigar,2003).As such,they can process
information deeply and quickly,which is helpful for
proactivity because in order to set and achieve a
proactive goal,an individual must determine what
第 4期 吴佳烽等:深谋远虑 :前瞻行为研究的回顾与展望 689
type of 1nformation is valuable in that situation and
then make appropriate plans to bring about change
in the future.Third,individuals high in the need for
cognition tend to form a strong attitude toward the
objects after cognitive elaboration fHaugtvedt&
Petty,1992),which then sustains behavior that is
consistent with their attitude(Cacioppo,Petty,Kao,
& Rodriguez. 1986). We would thus expect
individuals who are high in the need for cognition to
be more likely to persist in the pursuit of a proactive
goal because they develop ownership of the idea
once they have spent time thinking it through.
In support of our prediction,Steinhart and
Wyer(2009)found that people who are high in the
need for cognition have a stronger approach
motivation seeking to gain the expected positive
consequences than people with a lower need for
cognition.Yet,when potential threats are observed,
people who are high in the need for cognition tend
to heighten their avoidance motivation in order to
avoid the expected negative consequences,which
helps them to cope effectively with setbacks.This
latter finding is consistent with an experimental
study concerning fear appeals to prevent breast
cancer by Ruiter,Verplanken,De Cremer,and Kok
(2004). These scholars showed that when
participants were confronted with a higher threat
message, only people with a higher need for
cognition exhibited adaptive coping (e.g.,higher
intention to carry out monthly self—examinations),
suggesting that individuals who are higher in the
need for cognition have a strong tendency to
analyze the problem and accept recommended
actions.On this basis,we expect that the need for
cognition helps individuals to respond adaptively to
setbacks or obstacles that are commonly associated
with proactivity.
Therefore, we suggest that, compared to
individuals with low need for cognition,employees
with higher need for cognition are more likely to
engage in proactive work behavior because they
enjoy novel situations.They are better able to learn
from information in a situation,are likely to be
strongly committed to goals,and are more able to
cope adaptively with obstacles that are commonly
encountered with proactive action.Supporting our
hypothesis,in a sample of 179 employees working
in a research and consultancy organization in the
Netherlands,we found need for cognition positively
predicted individual innovation behavior,a form of
proactive work behavior(Parker& Collins,2010)
while controlling effects of proactive personality
and openness to experience,two personality factors
that have previously been shown to predict
proactivity.
Nevertheless,in the same sample,we also
found that need for cognition is more important for
shaping individual innovation behavior when job
autonomy and time pressure are lower,but less
important when job autonomy and time pressure are
higher.We suggest this situation occurs because
higher job autonomy encourages --—— and time
pressure pushes --—— all individual to be more
innovative, regardless of an employee’s
dispositional tendency to prefer thinking.When job
autonomy and time pressure is lower,there is no
situational force driving the individual to be
innovative, and thus employees’ dispositional
tendency in thinking (i.e.,need for cognition)
becomes important for shaping individual
innovation behavior.
More specifically, we suggest that job
autonomy enables and triggers similar functions,
such as the need for cognition when it comes to
proactive work behavior. First, high autonomy
means the work context is less defined and
restricted by formal rules and procedures(Meyer,
Dalai,& Hermida,20 10),resulting in a more
cognitively demanding situation in which
individuals are required to engage in cognitive
activities— regardless of whether they particularly
enjoy novel situations.Second,high autonomy
gives individuals better opportunities to link new
knowledge with previous knowledge,and learn new
information(Daniels,Boocock,Glover,Hartley,&
Holland,2009;Leach,Wall, & Jackson,2003;
Parker& Axtell,2001).As such,in high autonomy
situations,individuals’dispositional motivation to
think and cognitively explore situations will matter
less.Moreover,high autonomy results in individuals
feeling more responsibility for,and in ownership of,
their work(Hackman&Oldham,1976;Parker,Wall,
& Jackson.1997).When individuals form stronger
attitudes towards the issues at work,this motivates
690 理 科 学 进 展 第 21卷
them to persist with change—related goals and again
reduces the influence of need for cognition.
Altogether, when autonomy becomes higher,
individuals are more likely to engage in proactive
work behavior irrespective of their need for
cognition because the autonomy in the context
motivates and enables this behavior.However,when
individuals lack iob autonomy,the benefit of the
need for cognition for proactive work behavior will
be m.
ore prominent because the situation does not
provide a favorable environment to motivate
individuals to take more responsibility,widen their
perspectives,and deepen their knowledge.
In contrast, time pressure represents a
challenge stressor that can impose a force on
individuals to seek proactive ways to accomplish
work 0n time (Wu& Parker.2o11).Drawing on
activation theory (Gardner,1986),Ohly and Fritz
(2o10)proposed that time pressure will lead to
higher activation and, under this condition,
individuals will be stimulated and are more likely to
try different things from routine. Drawing on
control theory(Carver& Scheier,1982),Fay and
Sonnentag (2002, P.224) proposed that time
pressure can be regarded as a signal‘‘indicating that
a process,procedure,or design is below an optimal
leve1.”From this perspective,higher time pressure
indicates a suboptimal condition that requires more
effort to achieve the expected goal,and thus can
increase initiative taking. As such, high time
pressure is likely to prompt individuals to engage in
novel situations,or deviate from the status quo,
because they need to solve their problems in new
ways in order to gain time.At the same time,high
time pressure also makes it important for
individuals to process information quickly because
mev need to finish a certain amount of work wimin
a relative short time period,which is line with
Hockey’s(1993)idea that stress can increase effort
and concentration to deal with tasks at hand.
Accordingly,when time pressure becomes higher,
individuals are more likely to engage in proactive
work behavior irrespective of their need for
cognition because the situation prompts this type of
behavior.When time pressure is low,the situation
does not create a strong force for proactivity,so the
need for cognition plays a more powerful role.
In summary, our study contributes to
proactivity literature by identifying the need for
cognition as a dispositional antecedent of proactive
work behavior.In addition,we showed that the need
for cognition is most important when levels of job
autonomy or time pressure are relatively low.Our
findings provide several implications.First,we
show that proactive behavior is not only about doing,
but also about thinking. Dispositions in both
thinking(i.e.,need for cognition)and doing(i.e.,
proactive personality)are positively and uniquely
able to predict behavior.Second,we show that both
positive(i.e.,j0b autonomy)and negative(i.e.,time
pressure)job characteristics can facilitate proactive
behavior,which is consistent with previous findings
that we have reviewed. Third, we show a
compensation effect between need for cognition and
job autonomy/time pressure in shaping proactive
behavior.In line with job design theory,it would be
good to increase job autonomy to structurally
empower employees (e.g., Biron & Bamberger,
2010;Spreitzer,1996;Thorlakson& M urray,1996;
Wall,Cordery,& Clegg,2002),and to cultivate
their proactive behavior regardless their dispositions.
Nevertheless,there are some jobs where it is very
diffi cult to increase autonomy,yet proactivity is still
important.For example,jobs in safety critical
industries often have highly standardized work
procedures with very low method autonomy,and yet
employee proactivity in improving the work
systems is vital in the prevention of latent errors or
injuries(e.g.,Grote,2007;Mark et a1.,2007)
Recruiting individuals with a high need for
cognition might be a way of achieving proactivity
within such highly constrained environments in
which it is highly challenging to increase job
autonomy.
One limitation of our study is that we did not
examine the ‘‘thinking’’ mechanisms that we
theorized explain the relationship between the need
for cognition and proactive behavior, and the
moderating roles of job autonomy and time pressure
We assumed that job autonomy and time pressure
moderate the need for cognition because these work
characteristics can motivate thinking and
opportunity identification in a similar way to the
need for cognition,but this assumption has not been
第 4期 吴佳烽等 :深谋远虑 :前瞻行为研究的回顾与展望 691
tested.Future studies are thus encouraged to unpack
the underlying cognitive mechanisms.
Relational Nature of Proactivity:The Role of
Attachment Style and Contingent Effects of
Leader Secure-Base Support
W e propose that an individual characteristic
reflecting how an individual relates with others--——
attachment style --—— is important for shaping
proactive behavior.Proactivity can feel personally
risky because individuals’initiating change can
often encounter resistance from others(Parker et a1.,
2010)and their self-image as perceived by others
can be damaged (Ashf0rd,Blatt,& VandeW_al1e,
2003;Morrison & Bies.1991).Bringing about
change successfully also often requires that an
individual has social capital to support the resources
they need for change(Thompson,2005).Because of
the inherent social nature of many forms of
proactivity,we propose that individuals with all
orientation to relate positively to others will be
more motivated to behave proactively.
More specifically, we suggest that an
individual’s attachment style will shape proactive
behavior. Attachment theory suggests that the
quality of a child’s interactions with his/her primary
caregiver influences that child’s sense of relational
security,reflected in their attachment style,and
hence their exploration of novel and unfamiliar
environments(Bowlby,1969/1982).Over time,this
early attachment style gradually becomes a
relatively stable, though changeable, individual
characteristic (Fraley, 2002; Fraley, Vicary,
Brumbaugh,& Roisman,201 1),and thereby can
influence one’s exploration in adulthood,such as a
greater degree of willingness to explore and process
nove1 information (Green & Campbell, 2000;
Mikulincer,1997),a higher degree of achievement
motivation in academic settings (Elliot & Reis,
2003),and engaging in a range of exploration
experiences,such as thrill—seeking behavior,novelty
seeking.and impulsivity (Carnelley & Ruscher,
2000;Johnston,1999).
Based on the attachment·exploration
association,we suggest that attachment style will
predict proactive behavior because proactive
behavior can be regarded as a form of exploration
involving seeking information to reduce the
knowledge gap between what one knows and what
one wants to know in facing novelty,complexity,
uncertainty,and conflict(Berlyne,1960;Griffin et
a1.,2007;Loewenstein,1994),and is driven by a
motivation to master the environment(Bateman&
Crant.1993;White.1959).Supporting our ideas,in
a student sample.we(Wu& Parker,2012b)found
that attachment styrle is significantly related to
proactive career behavior.Specifically,based on the
two dimensions of adult attachment style(Brennan,
Clark,& Shaver,1998),we found that attachment
anxiety (which reflects the extent to which an
individual is anxious or fearful about abandonment
or being unloved) was negatively related to
proactive career behavior because of lower
self-efficacy,whereas attachment avoidance(which
reflects the extent to which an individual is
uncomfortable with closeness and dependence on
others)was negatively related to proactive career
behavior because of lower autonomous motivation
and positive affect.We replicated the same finding
in an employee sample with the focus on proactive
work behavior rated by supervisors.These findings
suggest that people with different relational
orientations had different motivations for engaging
in proactive behavior,such that people with higher
attachment anxiety have lower“can do”motivation,
whereas people with higher attachment avoidance
have 1ower “reason to” and “energized to”
motivation,with the net consequence being lower
proactivity.
In the employee sample,we further tested
whether supervisors can provide a secure base to
help employees with higher attachment anxiety or
attachment avoidance to feel more emcacious(can
do),more autonomously motivated(reason to),and
to experience higher positive affective(energized to)
and thus to engage in more proactive work behavior
(Wu& Parker.2012b).we examined the moderating
effect of leader secure—base support on the
relationship between attachment anxiety and
self-efficacy, and the relationship between
attachment avoidance and autonomous motivation
or positive affect. W incorporated into our
measurement of leadership the three elements of
692 心 理 科 学 进 展 第 2l卷
secure—base support (i.e., availability,
encouragement,and non—interference)identified by
Feeney and Thrush(2010).Thus,employees rated
their leaders’perceived support in terms of whether
the leader was available during diffi cult situations,
encouraged them, and delegated tasks without
interference. Results of moderated regression
analyses indicated that leader secure—base support
mitigated the negative relationship between
attachment anxiety and self-efficacy, the negative
relationship between attachment avoidance and
autonomous mofivmion,and the negmive relationship
between attachment avoidance and positive affect.
These findings show that supportive supervisors can
play a role as a secure base that provides confidence,
encourages autonomous motivation, and enhances
positive affect for employees,especially those who are
lacking attachment secufit~ to lead to greater
employee proactivity.
In summary,this study(Wu& Parker,20 1 2b)
contributes to the proactivity literature by
identifying the attachment style as a dispositional
antecedent of proactive behavior for a relational
perspective.Attachment styles had a unique and
significant effect on the three motivational states of
proactive behavior even when controlling for the
effect of proactive personality.This finding supports
the idea that proactive behavior is grounded within
the interpersonal context.In addition,we showed
that the leader secure—base support could mitigate
the negative impact of attachment anxiety or
attachment avoidance on the motivational states of
proactive behavior.This finding is consistent with
the compensation hypothesis rGranqvist &
Kirkpatrick,2008)suggested in attachment theory
that individuals who cannot obtain attachment
security from their primary caregivers will try to
seek figures who can provide attachment security
and provide an important managerial implication
that supervisors’support for exploration is a key
factor to cultivate employees’proactive behavior.
Relational Nature of Proactivity:The Role of
Attachment Style in Shaping Proactive Behavior
at Inter-Individual Level
Attachment style not only influences proactive
behavior at the inter—individual level as we reported
above,but also influences proactive behavior at the
intra—individual level(Wu& Parker.2012a).as we
elaborate next.
It is reasonable to expect that an individual
does not always exhibit proactive behavior in all
situations,even though s/he is high in proactive
personality.This is because,at the intra—individual
level,individuals experience different states,they
operate within different situations,and they are
subject to varying motivational forces that influence
their proactive behavior at a particular point.Based
on the states and relevant cues in a particular
situation。 an individua1 will decide whether to
behave proactively or not (Sonnentag, 2003;
Sonnentag&Niessen.2008).In other words.people
vary in their thresholds for being proactive in
response to relevant states or cues such that some
individuals are more likely to engage in proactive
behavior than others are,even though they are in the
same situation.Drawing on the cognitive—affective
personality system (CAPS)model of personality
(Mischel& Shoda,1995,1998),the associations
between relevant states or cues and behavior likely
reflect one’s personality. That is, people can
chronically differ in the associations between
relevant states or cues and their behavior.We
propose people with different attachment styles
chronically differ in these associations.
In order to test this idea.we identified thFee
relevant states that can trigger proactive behavior in
a given occasion at the intra—individual level:
curiosity, core self-evaluati0ns, and future
orientation. Frese and Fay’s (200 1) proactive
process model has implied a positive link between
curiosity and proactive behavior at the
intra—individual level because being curious is
required when a proactive intention is formed.Thus,
when one’s curiosity level is increased,his/her level
of proactive behavior will also become higher at the
same time.In line with this view,Kashdan and
Steger (2007) showed that daily curiosity is
beneficial to generating more daily proactive social
behaviors and goal—directed efforts.Likewise,each
time an individual forms a intention to take
proactive actions,he/she will initiate a proactive
goal with intrinsic reasons(Parker et a1.,2010)and
第 4期 吴佳烽等:深谋远虑:前瞻行为研究的回顾与展望 693
gauge his/her ability to face challenges elicited from
that action (Morrison & Phelps,1 999).both of
which are associated with one’s core
self-evaluations in that situation.Thus,when one’s
core self-evaluations are increased.his/her 1eve1 of
proactive behavior is more likely to become higher.
Likewise in regard to future orientation,Grant and
Ashford (2008)defined the three phases of the
proactivity process as anticipation,planning and
action directed toward future impact.All three
phases have a strong future orientation,which leads
a person to think ahead,plan in advance,and take
actions for the future.Thus when one’s future
orientation is high,the tendency to go through the
process of anticipation,planning,and action to
complete a proactive action should also be high.
General evidence therefore suggests intra—individual
experiences in curiosity,core self-evaluations,and
future orientation influence intra—individual
proactive behavior.Supporting our hypothesis,in a
sample with 58 participants in a repeated measures
study,we found that monthly measures of curiosity,
core self-evaluations, and future orientation
positively predicted a monthly measure of proactive
behavior at the intra—individual leve1.
We further examined cross.1evel interaction
effects of attachment styles to see whether
attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance at
inter-individual will moderate the relationship
between monthly curiosity,core self-evaluations,
and future orientation and monthly proactive
behavior at the intra—individual leve1. Only
attachment anxiety had significant cross—level
interaction effects.Specifically,attachment anxiety
had a negative cross—level interaction effect with
monthly core self-evaluations in predicting monthly
proactive behavior, showing that core
self-evaluations have a weaker association with
proactive behavior among people high in attachment
anxiety.However,attachment anxiety also had a
positive cross.1evel interaction effect with monthly
future orientation in predicting monthly proactive
behavior,showing that future goal orientation had a
stronger predictive effect on proactive personality
among people high in attachment anxiety.Overall,
these findings show that anxiously attached
individuals tend to rely less on their perceived sense
of worth,but more on their fu【ture orientation,for
behaving proactively within a particular occasion.
This might reflect the ambivalent attitude towards
external worlds characterized by people high in
attachment anxiety.That is,although they are eager
to master their external environment,they also
experience a fear of loss at the same time(Bowlby,
1969;Mikulincer& Shaver,2007).In other words.
as reported by Mikulincer(1997),people high in
attachment anxiety appreciate feelings of mastery
during exploration,but at the same time,they do not
perceive themselves as having enough capability to
sustain this exploration or cope with potential
distress(Wei.Heppner,& Mallinckrodt.2003).For
individuals high in attachment anxiety,behaving
proactively might be a good way of experiencing
mastery in the face of a strong focus on future goals,
but the fragility of their self-concept means that
positive core self-evaluations do not necessarily
translate into proactive action.Proactive personality
did not have any cross—level moderating effects on
the intra—individual links between states and
proactivity in this study.
Consistent with the idea that providing a
supportive social environment can help to promote
proactive behavior, one potential strategy for
boosting anxiously attached individuals’proactivity
at a given occasion is through cultivating a positive
social environment.This is because higher quality
of social relationships can help them to reduce their
relationship anxiety(Bowlby,1969/1982)while also
strengthening their self-evaluations, such that
having positive and reliable social relationships
with others will alleviate their worries about loss
and positive feedback or personal care from mentors
or colleagues can help to strengthen their
self-evaluations(Srivastava& Beer,2005).Thus,
for those people, a positive social environment
might help both to reduce relationship anxiety and
to enhance CSE,thereby increasing the impact of
CSE on proactive behavior at any given moment
and ultimately fostering proactive behavior.
Conclusion
In this article,we provide reviews on (1)
conceptualizations of proactivity,(2)mechanisms,
694 心 理 科 学 进 展 第 21卷
(3)antecedents,and(4)consequence of proactive
behavior.Being proactive involves self—initiated,
future—focused, and change—orientated behaviors
(Frese& Fay,2001;Parker et a1.,2006),such as
designing and implementing new work methods or
actively seeking feedback from a supervisor.Such
proactivity has been recognized as positive behavior
that can lead to the increased performance and
effectiveness of individuals and organizations,
especially when employees are required to respond
to changing conditions and demands(Griffin et a1.,
2007).Because of its well—documented benefits,the
antecedents and mechanisms of proactive behavior
have been widely examined in an effort to identify
how to promote such behavior in organizations(Fay
& Frese,2001;Parker et a1.,2006).As we reviewed,
according to Parker, Bindl and Straus (2olo),
individuals are more likely to engage in proactive
action if they have a strong autonomous motivation
for bringing about the change(‘reason to’pathway);
have the self-efficacy to behave proactively and deal
with any consequences(‘can do’pathway);and if
they experience activated positive effects,such as
feelings of enthusiasm (‘energized to’pathway).
Both dispositional (e.g., knowledge/ability,
personality)and situational antecedents(e.g.,job
characteristics, leadership, and organizational
climate) and their interactions can shape these
motivational state and/or proactive behavior.
We also provide a specific review of our
research studies focusing on the dispositional
impact on proactive behavior.We highlighted the
cognitive and relational aspects of proactive
behavior,identified dispositional factors(i.e.,need
for cognition and attachment styles)relating to
these two aspects,and examined contingent effects
of situational factors(i.e.,iob characteristics and
leaders’support)to gauge dispositional impact of
proactive behavior.We also brought a multilevel
perspective to investigate how dispositional factors
(attachment styles in particular)shape proactive
behavior at inter- and intra—individual leve1.as
reported in different studies.
From our perspective, we suggest it is
valuable to strengthen the research on the link
between personality an d proactive behavior as
studies in the past have almost exclusively focused
on proactive personality (Bateman & Crant,1993;
Fuller& Marler,2009).Our recent studies highlight
that proactive personality is not sufficient to explain
why some people,but not others,will engage in
proactive behavior.It also does not explain why an
individual engages in proactive behavior on one
occasion but not others rWu& Parker,2012a).Thus
we encourage future studies that focus on
dispositional factors beyond proactive personality,
including studies that delineate the mechanisms by
which personality has its effects,and that consider
interaction effects with situational factors.We also
recommend bringing a multilevel perspective to
consider how dispositional factors will influence
proactive behavior at inter- and intra—individual
context.
References
Ashford,S.J,& Black,J.S.(1996).Proactivity during
organizational entry: The role of desire for contro1.
Journal ofApplied Ps chology,81(2),199-214.
Ashford, S.J.,Blatt,R.,& VandeWalie,D.(2003)
Reflections on the looking glass:A review of research on
feedback-seeking behavior in organizations,Journal of
Management,29(6),773—799.
Ashforth,B E.,Sluss,D.M.,& Saks,A.M.(2007).
Socialization tactics,proactive behavior,and newcomer
learning:Integrating socialization models.Journal of
Vocational Behavio~70,447—462.
Axtell,C.M.,Holman,D.J.,Unsworth,K.L.,W all,T.D.,
Waterson,P E,& Harrington,E (2000).Shopfloor
innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and
implementation of ideas.Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Ps cholog~ 73,265-285.
Axtell,C.M.,Holman,D.J.,& Wall,T.D.(2006).
Promoting innovation: A change study.Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79,
509-5 l6.
Bandura.A.r1994).Self-efficacy.In V S.Ramachaudra
(Ed),Encyclopedia of human behaviour(VoI.4,PP.
71-81).New York:Academic Press.
Bateman, S.,& Crant,J.M.(1993).The proactive
component of organizational behavior: A measure and
correlates.Journal of Organizational Behavior,14(2),
103一l18.
Belschak,F D.,& Den Hartog,D N.(2O10).Pro—self,
prosocial, and pro—organizational foci of proactive
behaviour: Difierential antecedents and consequences.
第 4期 吴佳烽等 :深谋远虑 :前瞻行为研究的回顾与展望 695
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psycholog~
83.475—498.
Berlyne,D.E.(1960).Conflict,aFousal,and curiosity.New
York:M cGraw—Hil1.
Bettencourt,L.A (2004).Change-oriented organizational
citizenship behaviors:The direct and moderating influence
of goal orientation.Journal ofRetailing,80,165-180.
Bind1,U.K.,& Parker,S.K.(2010).Proactive work
behavior:Forward--thinking and change·-oriented action in
organizations.In S.Zedeck (Ed.),APA handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology. W ashington,
DC:American Psychological Association.
Bindl,U.K.,Parker,S.K.,Totterdell,P,& Hagger—Johnson,
G (2012).Fuel of the self—starter:How mood relates to
proactive goal regulation.Journal ofApplied Psychology,
97.134—150.
Binnewies,C.,Ohly,S.,& Sonnentag,S.(2007).Taking
personal initiative and comm unicating about ideas:W hat
is important for the creative process and for idea creativity?
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psycholog~
16,432—455.
Binnewies,C.,Sonnentag,S.,& Mojza,E.J.(2009).Daily
performance at work:Feeling recovered in the morning as
a predictor of day-level job performance.Journal of
Organizational Behavior,3D.67—93.
Biron,M.,& Bamberger,P.(2010).The impact of structural
empowerment on individual well—being and performance:
Taking agent preferences, self-efficacy and operational
constraints into account.Human Relations,63。163—191.
Bledow,R.,&Frese,M.(2009).A situational judgment test
of personal initiative and its relationship to performance.
Personnel Psychology,62,229-258.
Blickle, G, Witzki,A.,& Schneider, P B. (2009).
Self-initiated mentoring and career Success:A predictive
field study.Journal ofVocational Behavior,74,94—101.
Borsboom,D.,Mellenbergh,G J.,& van Heerden,J.(2003).
The theoretical status of latent variables.Psychological
Review,110,203—219.
Bowlby,J.(1969).Attachment and loss.场Z. Attachment.
New York:Basic Books.
Bowlby.J.(1969/1982).Attachment and loss. f.J
Attachment.London:Pimlico.
Brennan,K.A.,Clark,C.L.,& Shaver, R.(1998).
Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An
integrative overview.In J.A.Simpson & W _S.Rholes
(Eds.),Attachment theory and close relationships(PP.
46-76).New York:Guilford Press.
Brown,D.J.,Cuber,R.T.,Kane,K.,Levy,P E.,&
Shalhoop,J. (2006). Proactive personality and the
successful job search:A field investigation with college
graduates.Journal ofApplied Psycholog~91(3),717-726.
Burris,E.R.,Detert,J.R.,& Chiaburu,D.S.(2008).
Quitting before leaving: The mediating effects of
psychological attachment and detachment on voice.
Journal ofApplied Psychologz 93,912-922.
Cacioppo,J. ,& Petty,R.E.(1982).The need for
cognition.Journal of Personality and Social Psycholog~
42,116—131.
Cacioppo,J.T.,Petty,R.E.,Feinstein,J.A.,& Jarvis,W .B.
G (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive
motivation:The life and times of individuals varying in
need for cognition.Psychological Bulletin,119,197—253.
Cacioppo,J.T.,Petty,R.E.,Kao,C.F.,& Rodriguez,R.
(1986).Central and peripheral routes to persuasion:An
individual difference perspective.Journal of Personality
and Social Psycholog~ 51,1032—1043.
Carless,S.A.,& Bernath,L.(2007).Antecedents of intent to
change careers among psychologists.Journal of Career
Development,33,1 83—200.
Carnelley,K.B.,& Ruscher,J.B.(2000).Adult attachment
and exploratory behaviour in leisure.Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality,15,153—165.
Carver,C.S.,& Scheier,M.F.(1982).Control theory:A
useful conceptual framework for personality—social,
clinical,and health psychology..Psychological Bulletin,
92(1),111-135.
Chan,D.(2006).Interactive effects of situational judgment
effectiveness and proactive personality on work
perceptions and work outcomes.Journal of Applied
P chology,91(2),475—481.
Chen,G,& Kanfer,R.(2006)Toward a systems theory of
motivated behavior in work teams. Research in
Organizational Behavior,27,223—267.
Crant.J.M.(2000).Proactive behavior in organizations.
Journal ofManagement,26(3),435-462.
Daniels,K.,Boocock,G ,Glover,J.,Hartley,R.,& Holland,
J.(2009).An experience sampling study of learning,affect,
and the demands control support mode1.Journal of
Applied Psychology,94(4),1003-1017.
De Vos,A.,De Clippeleer,I.,& Dewilde,T.(2009).
Proactive career behaviours and career success during the
early career.Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology,82,761-777.
Den Hartog,D.N.,& Belschak,F.D.(2007).Personal
initiative,commitment and affect at work.Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80,
601-622.
Den Hartog,D.N.,& Belschak,F D.(2012).When does
transformational leadership enhance employee proactive
behavior? The role of autonomy and role breadth
696 理 科 学 进 展 第 21卷
sel~efficacy.Journal ofApplied Psycholog~97,194—202.
Dorenbosch,L.,van Engen,M.L.,& Verhagen,M.(2005).
On-the-job Innovation:The impact of job design and
human resource m anagement through production
ownership. Creativity and Innovation M anagement, 14,
129一l41.
Dutton,J.E.,Ashford,S.J.,O’Neill,R.M.,Hayes,E.,&
Wierba,E.E.(1997).Reading the wind:How middle
managers assess the context for selling issues to top
managers. Strategic Management Journal, J 8(5),
407-425.
Eby,L.T.,Butts,M.,&Lockwood,A.(2003).Predictors of
success in the era of the boundaryless career.Journal of
Organizational Behavior,24,689—708.
Eccles,J.S.,& Wigfield,A (2002).Motivational beliefs,
values,and goals.Annual Review of Psycholog~ 53(1),
109-l32.
Elliot,A.J.,& Reis,H.T.(2003).Attachment and
exploration in adulthood.Journal Personality and
Social Psycholog~ 85,317-331.
Evans,C.J.,Kirby,J.R.,& Fabrigar,L.R.(2003).
Approaches to learning,need for cognition,and strategic
flexibility among university students.British Journal of
Educational Psycholog~ 73,507-528.
Fay,D.,& Frese,M.(2001).The concept of personal
initiative: An overview of validity studies. Human
Performance,14(1),97—124.
Fay,D.,& Sonnentag,S.(2002).Rethinking the effects of
stressors: A longitudinal study off personal initiative.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(3),
22l-234.
Feeney,B.C.,& Thrush,R.L.(2010).Relationship
influences on exploration in adulthood:The characte ristics
and function of a secure base.Journal of Personality and
Social Psychologz 98.57—76.
Fleeson, W. (2001).Toward a structure—and process—
integrated view of personality: Traits as density
distributions of states.Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,80,10l1-1027.
Ford,M.E.(1992).Motivating humans:Goals,emotions,
and personal agency beliefs.NewBury Park,CA:Sage
Publications.
Fraley,R.C.(2002).Attachment stability from infancy to
adulthood: Meta—analysis and dynamic modeling of
developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social
Psychology Review,6,123-15 1.
Fraley,R.C.,Vicary,A.M.,Brumbaugh,C.C.,& Roisman,
G I.(2011).Patterns of stability in adult attachment:An
empirical test of two models of continuity and change.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101,
974-992
Fredrickson,B.L.(1998).What good are positive emotions?
Review of General Psychology,2(3),300~3 1 9.
Fredrickson,B.L.(2001).The role of positive emotions in
positive psychology: The broaden—-and-·build theory of
positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3),
2l8-226.
Frese,M.,& Fay,D (2001) Personal initiative(PI):An
active performance concept for work in the 21 st century.
In B.M.Staw & R M.Sutton (Eds.),Research in
Organizational Behavior (V01. 23, pp 133一l87).
Amsterdam :Elsevier Science.
Frese,M.,Fay,D.,Hilburger,T.,Leng,K.,&Tag,A.(1997).
The concept of personal initiative: OperatiOna1izati0n,
reliability and validity in two German samples.Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70,
l39-161.
Frese,M.,Garst,H.,& Fay,D.(2007).Making things
happen: Reciprocal relationships between work
characteristics and personal initiative in a four.wave
longitudinal structural equation mode1.Journal ofApplied
Ps,chology,92(4),1084-1 102.
Frese,M.,Kring,W.,Soose,A.,& Zempel,J.(1 996)
Personal initiative at work:Differences between East and
West Germany.Academy of Management Journal,39,
37—63.
Fritz,C.,& Sonnentag,S (2009).Antecedents of day—level
proactive behavior:A look at job stressors and positive
affect during the workday.Journal of Management,35,
94-111.
Fuller,J.B.,& Marler,L.E.(2009).Change driven by
nature:A meta—analytic review of the proactive personality
literature.Journal of Vocational Behavior,75,329—345
Fuller,J.B.,Marler,L.E.,& Hester,K (2006).Promoting
felt responsibility for constructive change and proactive
behavior:Exploring aspects of an elaborated model of
work design.Journal of Organizational Behavior,27.
1089-I12O.
Gardner,D.G (1 986).Activation theory and task design:An
empirical test of several new predictions.Journal of
Applied Psycholog~ 71,41 1-418.
Granqvist,P.,& Kirkpatrick.L.A.(2oo8)Attachment and
religious representatiOns and behavior.In J.Cassidy& P.
R Shaver (Eds.),Handbook of attachment:Theory,
research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., PP.
906—933).New York:Guilford.
Grant,A.M.,& Ashford,S.J.(2008).The dynamics of
proactivity at work.Research in Organizational Behavior,
28,3-34.
Grant,A.M.,& Mayer,D.M.(2009).Good soldiers and
第 4期 吴佳烽等 :深谋远虑 :前瞻行为研究的回顾与展望 697
good actors: Prosocial and impression management
motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship
behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4),
900-912.
Grant,A.M.,Parker,S.K.,&Collins,C.G (2009).Getting
credit for proactive behavior:Supervisor reactions depend
on what you value and how you fee1. Personnel
Psychology,62(1、 3 1-55.
Grant,A.M.,& Sumanth,I.J.(2009).Mission possible?
The performance of prosocially m otivated employees
depends on manager trustworthiness.Journal of Applied
Psycholog~ 94,927—944.
Gteen,J.D.,& Campbell,W K.(2000).Attachment and
exploration in adults:Chronic and contextual accessibility.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,26,452-461.
Griffin,M.A.,Neal,A.,& Parker,S.K.(2007).A new
model of work role performance:Positive behavior in
uncertain and interdependenc contexts. Academy of
Management Journal,50(2),327-347.
Griffin,M.A.,Parker,S.K.,&Mason,C.M.(2010).Leader
vision and the development of adaptive and proactive
performance:A longitudinal study.Journal of Applied
Psychology,95,174-182.
Grote,G (2007).Understanding and assessing safety culture
through the lens of organizational management of
uncertainty.Safety Science,45,637-652.
Gruman,J.A.,Saks,A.M.,& Zweig,D.I.(2006).
Organizational socialization tactics and newcomer
proactive behaviors:An integrative study.Journal of
Vocational Behavior,69,90—104.
Gupta,V K.,& Bhawe,N.M.(2007).The influence of
proactive personality and stereotype threat on women’s
entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Leadersh and
Organizational Studies,13,73—85.
Hackman,J.R.,&Oldham,G R.(1976).Motivation through
the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance,16,250-279.
Haugtvedt,C.,& Petty,R.E.(1992).Personality and
persuasion:Need for cognition moderates the persistence
and resistance of attitude change.Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,63,308—3 19.
Hockey, G R.J. (1993).Cognitive—energetic control
mechanisms in the management of work demands and
psychological health.In A.D.Baddeley& L.W eiskrantz
(Eds.),Attention:Selection,awareness,and control:A
tribute to Donald Broadbent(PP.328—345).New York,
NY:Claredon Press/Oxford University Press.
Howell,J.M.,& Shea,C.M.(2001).Individual differences,
environmental scanning, innovation framing, and
champion behavior:Key predictors of project performance
Journal ofProduct Innovation Management,18,15-27.
Ilies,R.,&Judge,T.A.(2005).Goal regulation across time:
The effects of feedback and affect.Journal of Applied
Psycholog~90(3),453-467.
Isen,A.M.(1999).On the relationship between affect and
creative problem solving.In S.Russ(Ed.),Affect,creative
experience,and psychological adjustment(PP.3-17).
Philadelphia:Taylor& Francis
Janssen,O.,& Van Yperen,N.W.(2004).Employees goal
orientations,the quality of leader—member exchange,and
the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction.
Academy ofManagement Journal,47(3),368—384.
Johnston,M.A.(1999).Influences of adult attachment in
exploration.Psychological Reports,84,3 1-34.
Kanfer,R.,Wanberg,C.R.,&Kantrowitz,T.M.(2001).Job
search and employment: A personality—motivational
analysis and meta-analytic review.Journal of Applied
P chology,86(5) 837—855.
Kashdan,T.B.,& Steger,M.F.(2007).Curiosity and
pathways to well-being and meaning in life:Traits,states,
and everyday behaviors. Motivation and Emotion,31,
159-l73.
Latham,G R,& Pinder,C.C.(2005).Work motivation
theory and research at the dawn of the twenty—first century.
AnnualReview of Psychology,.56,485-516.
Leach,D.J.,Ⅵ l1,T D.,&Jackson,R R.(2003).The effect
of empowerment on job knowledge:An empirical test
involving operators of complex technology.Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psycholog~ 76,27—52.
LePine,J.A.,& Van Dyne.L.(1998).Predicting voice
behavior in work groups.Journal of Applied Psycholog~
83(6),853—868.
LePine,J.A.,&Van Dyne,L.(2001).Voice and cooperative
behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance:
Evidence of differential relationships with big five
personality characteristics and cognitive ability.Journal of
Applied Psychology,86(2),326—336.
Loewenstein.G (1994).The psychology of curiosity:A
review and reinterpretation.Psychological Bulletin,116,
75-98.
Madjat,N.,Oldham,G R.,&Pratt,M.G (2002).There’s no
place like home?The contributions of work and non—work
creativity to support employee’s creative performance.
Academy ofManagement Journal,45,757-767
Major,D.A.,Turner,J.E.,&Fletcher, D.(2006).Linking
proactive personality and the Big Five t0 motivation to
learn and development activity.Journal of Applied
Psycholog~91(4),927-935.
Mark,B.A.,Hughes,L.C.,Belyea,M.,Chang,Y.,Hofmann,
D.,Jones,C.B.,& Bacon,C.T.(2007).Does safety
698 理 科 学 进 展 第 21卷
climate moderate the influence of staffing adequacy and
work conditions on nurse injuries?Journal of Safety
Research,38,43 1—446
Markus,H.,& Nurius,P (1 986).Possible Selves.American
Psychologist,41(9),954—969.
M cAllister,D J.,Kamdar,D ,M orrison,E.W .,& Turban,D.
B.(2007).Disentangling role perceptions:How perceived
role breadth, discretion, instrumentality,and efficacy
relate to helping and taking charge.Journal of Applied
Psychology,92,1200—1211.
Meyer,R D.,Dalai,R.S.,& Hermida,R.(20lO).A review
and synthesis of situational strength in the organizational
sciences.Journal ofManagement,36,121-140.
Mikulincer, M. (1997). Adult attachment style and
information processing:Individual differences in curiosity
and cognitive closure.Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,72,1217-1230.
Mikulincer,M ,& Shaver,P.R.(2007).Attachment in
adulthood:Structure,eynamics,and change.New York:
Guilford Press.
Mischel,W.,& Shoda,Y (1995).A cognitive—affective
system theory of personality:Rec0nceptualizing situations,
dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality
structure.Psychological Review,102(2),246-268.
Mischel,W.,& Shoda,Y.(1998).Reconciling processing
dynamics and personality dispositions.Annual Review of
Psychology,49,229-258
Morgeson,F R,& Campion,M.,A.(2003).Work design.In
W.C.Borman,D.R.Ilgen,& R.J Klimoski(Eds.),
Handbook ofPsychology(Vo1.12,PP.423—452).Hoboken,
NJ:John W iley.
Morrison,E.W.(1993a).Longitudinal study of the effects of
information seeking on newcomer socialization.Journal
ofApplied Psychology,78(2),173-183.
Morrison,E W.(1993b).Newcomer information seeking:
Exploring types,modes,sources,and outcomes Academy
ofManagement Journal,36(3),557—589.
Morrisou, E. W., & Bies, R.J. (1991). Impression
m anagement in the feedback-seeking process:A literature
review and research agenda,Academy of Management
Review,16(3),522—541.
Morrison,E.W.,& Phelps,C.C.(1999).Taking charge at
work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change.
Academy ofManagement Journal,42(4),403—419.
Ohly,S.,& Fritz,C.(2007).Challenging the status quo:
What motivates proactive behavior? Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80,
623-629.
Ohly,S.,& Fritz,C.(2010).Work characteristics,challenge
appraisal,creativity,and proactive behavior:A multi—level
study.Journal ofOrganizational Behavior,31,543—565.
Ohly,S.,Sonnentag,S.,&Pluntke,F (2006).Routinization,
work characteristics and their relationships with creative
and proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational
Behavior,27,257-279.
Parker,S.K (1998).Enhancing role breadth self—efficacy:
The roles of job enrichment and other organizational
interventions.Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6),
835-852
Parker,S.K (2007).How positive affect can facilitate
proactive behavior in the work place.Paper presented at
the Academy of Management Conference,Philadelphia,
USA
Parker,S.K.,& Axtell,C.M.(2001).Seeing another view
point: Antecedents and outcomes of employee
perspective—taking.Academy of Management Journa1.44.
1085-1 100.
Parker,S.K.,Bindl,U.K.,& Strauss,K (201O).Making
things happen:A model of proactive motivation Journal
ofManagement,36,827—856.
Parker, S. K.,& Collins,C.G (201O).Taking stock:
Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive
behaviors.Journal ofManagement,36,633—662
Parker,S.K,&Ohly,S.(2008).Designing motivating work.
In R.Kanfer,G Chen,& R Pritchard (Eds),Work
motivation."Past,present,andfulure:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Parker,S K.,Wall,T.D.,& Jackson,P R.(1997).“That’s
not my job”: Developing flexible employee work
orientations.Academy of Management Journal,40(4),
899-929
Parker,S. K.,Williams,H M.,& Turner,N.(2006).
M odeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work.
Journal ofApplied Psycholog~91(3),636—652.
Parker,S.K., & Wu,C. 一H.(in press). Leading for
proactivity:How leaders cultivate staff who make things
happen.In D.V Day (Ed.),7 P Oxford Handbook of
Leadersh and Organizations. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Raabe,B.,Frese,M ,& Beehr,T.A.(2007).Action
regulation theory and career self-management.Journal of
Vocational Behavior,70.297—3 l 1.
Rank,J.,Carsten,J.M .,Unger,J.M ,& Spector,P E
(2007). Proactive customer service performance:
Relationships with individual, task, and leadership
variables.Human Performance,20(4),363—390.
Rank,J.,Nelson,N.E.,Allen,T D.,& Xu,X.(2009).
Leadership predictors of innovation and task performance:
Subordinates’ self—esteem and self-presentation as
moderators.Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology,82,465-489.
第 4期 吴佳烽等 :深谋远虑 :前瞻行为研究的回顾与展望 699
Ruiter,R.A.C.,Verplanken,B.,Cremer,D.D.,& Kok,G
(2004).Danger control and fear control in response to fear
appeals:The role of need for cognition.Basic and Applied
Social Psychology,26,13-24
Saks,A.M.,& Ashforth,B.E.(1999).Effects of individual
differences and job search behaviors on the employment
status of recent university graduates. Journal of
Vocational Behavior,54,335—349.
Salanova,M ,& Schaufeli,W.B.(2008).A cross.national
study of work engagement as a mediator between job
resources and proactive behaviour.International Journal
ofHuman Resource Management,19(1),116-131.
Scott,S.G,& Bruce,R.A (1994).Determinants of
innovative behavior: A path model of individual
innovation in the workplace.Academy of Management
Journal,3 7(3),580—607.
Seibert,S.E.,Kraimer,M.L.,& Crant,J.M.(2001).What
do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking
proactive personality and career success. Personnel
Ps’cholog~ 54(2) 845—874.
Sonnentag,S.(2003).Recovery,work engagement,and
proactive behavior:A new look at the interface between
nonwork and work.Journal ofApplied PsychologN 88(3),
5l8-528.
Sonnentag,S.,&Niessen,C.(2008).Staying vigorous until
work is over:The role of trait vigour,day—specific work
experiences and recovery.Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psycholog~ 81,435-458.
Speier,C.,&Frese,M.(1997).Generalized self-efficacy as a
mediator and moderator between control and complexity
at work and personal initiative:A longitudinal field
study in East Germany.Human Performance, 10(2),
171一l92.
Spreitzer,G M.(1996).Social structural characteristics of
psychological empowerment.Academy of Management
Journal,39,483—504
Srivastava,S.,& Beer,J.S.(2005).How self-evaluations
relate to being liked by others:Integrating sociometer and
attachment perspectives.Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,89,966—977.
Steinhart,Y,&Wyer,R.S.(2009).Motivational correlates
of need for cognition.European Journal of Social
Psychology,39,608—621.
Strauss,K.,Griffin,M.A.,& Parker,S.K.(2012).Future
work selves:How salient hoped-for identities motivate
proactive career behaviors.Journal ofApplied Psychology,
97,580—598.
Strauss,K.,Griffin,M.A.,& Rafferty,A.E.(2009).
Proactivity directed toward the team and organization:The
role of leadership, commitment, and role—breadth
self-efficacy. British Journal of Management, 20,
279-291.
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008). Exploring
nonlinearity in employee voice:The effects of personal
control and organizational identification.Academy of
Management Journal,51,1189—1203.
Thomas,J.P,W hitman,D.S.,& Viswesvaran,C.(20lO).
Employee proactivity in organizations: A comparative
meta—analysis of emergent proactive constructs.Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83,
275-300.
Thompson,J A (2005).Proactive personality and job
performance:A social capital perspective.Journal of
Applied Psychology,90(5),101 1-1017.
Thorlakson,A.J.H.,& Murray,R.P (1996).An empirical
study of empowerment in the workplace. Group &
Organization Management,21,67-83.
Tidwell,M.,& Sias,P(2005).Personality and information
seeking: Understanding how traits influence
information—seeking behaviors. Journal of Business
Communication,42,5 1-77.
Tuckey,M.,Brewer,N.,& Williamson,P (2002).The
inflHence of motives and goal orientation on feedback
seeking.Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Ps’chology,75 195—216.
Van Dyne,L.,& Le Pine,J A.(1 998).Helping and voice
extra—role behaviors:Evidence of construct and predictive
validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1),
l08-1 19.
VandeWalle,D.,Ganesan,S.,Challagalla,G N.,& Brown,S.
P f2000).An integrated model of feedback-seeking
behavior:Disposition,context,and cognition.Journal of
Applied Psychology,85(6),996—1003.
Vroom.V H.f1964).Work and motivation.New York:John
W iley.
Wall,T.D.,Cordery,J.L.,& Clegg,C.W.(2002).
Empowerment,performance,and operational Uncertainty:
A theoretical integration. Applied Ps chology: An
International Review,51,146—169.
Wanberg,C.R.,& Kammeyer—Mueller, J.D.(2000).
Predictors and outcomes of proactivity in the socialization
process.Journal ofApplied Psychology,85(3),373—385.
Wei,M.,Heppner,P P,& Mallinckrodt,B (2003).
Perceived coping as a mediator between attachment and
psychological distress:A structural equation modeling
approach. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50,
438-447.
White,R.W.(1 959).Motivation reconsidered:The concept
of competence.Psychological Review,66,297—333.
Wu,C.一H.,&Parker,S.K.(201 1).Proactivity in the work
700 理 科 学 进 展 第 2l卷
place:Looking back and looking forward.In K.Cameron
& G Spreitzer(Eds.),The Oxford Handbook of Positive
Organizational Scholarsh .New York:Oxford University
Press.
Wu,C.·H.,&Parker,S.K.(2012a).The role of attachment
styles in shaping proactive behaviour:An intra—individual
analysis.Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Ps chology,85,523-530.
Wu,C.一H.,& Parker,S.K.(2012b).A secure base for
proactivity: How supportive leaders compensate for
individuals’ insecure attachment styles Unpublished
manuscript.
Wu,C.一H.,Parker,S.K.,&de Jong,J.P.J.(in press).Need
for cognition as an antecedent of individual innovation
behavior. Journal of Managemen~ doi: 1 0.
1177/01492063l】429862
深谋远虑:前瞻行为研究的回顾与展望
吴佳烽 Sharon K.Parker
(西澳大孥商孕院,澳大利亚)
摘 要 前瞻行为是一个 自我发起、未来导向以及试图改变现状的积极行为,能够为个人与组织带来正面的
影响。本文旨于回顾前瞻行为的本质、前导因素、动机历程以及结果效应,也特别回顾笔者近期针对前瞻行
为所进行的研究。首先,关于前瞻一词可以从不同的角度进行理解,包括个别差异观点、行为观点与历程观点。
由于过去文献多从行为观点进行研究,本文的回顾亦以行为观点为主轴。其次,本文逐一回顾目前文献所提出
的三个关于促进前瞻行为的动机历程:能力、缘由与情绪。再者,笔者讨论各种能够促发前瞻行为的前导因素,
包括个人因素、环境因素,以及两者问的交互作用如何影响前瞻行为的展现。笔者也基于过去的研究发现,总
结前瞻行为所能导致的结果,包括工作态度与绩效。最后,在近期研究的介绍中,笔者介绍了三个根据个别差
异的观点所进行的研究。此研究路线 旨在了解人格特质对前瞻行为的影响,并且勾勒情境所扮演的调节效应。
全文最终总结前瞻行为的研究现状,以及提出未来可能探索的研究方向。
关键词 前瞻行为:人格特质;组织行为
分类号 B849:C93
top related